Movie Review: Spider-man 3

"This suit, where'd this come from? The power, feels good... But you lose yourself to it... "

When I was in high school, Spider-man was the comic series that I read the most. I loved how Peter Parker was just this awkward young guy who just happened to have this super secret identity—in a sense it gave me hope to face my own awkwardness. When the movie franchise started a few years ago I was thrilled with the result. The director of all of the Spider-man films, Sam Raimi, has been able to give the movies the right balance of humor and stylized film making that has made it possible for a guy clad in blue and red tights not to look ridiculous.


Now that we're on the third installment, the series is becoming quite comfortable with it's characters and storytelling. As I was watching, it struck me how much like a continuing series on television this franchise was becoming, and in light of shows like Lost and Heroes, I think a TV show about an established super hero would do very well. So it was with that thought it mind that I started evaluating Spider-man 3.

As part of a continuing series, I thought this "episode" fit in very well. We're continuing the personal relation ship drama that Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is having with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and Harry Osborn (James Franco). We're seeing characters show up that are important in the comic books like Dr. Curt Connors (Dylan Baker) who eventually becomes The Lizard and Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) who fills her comic book role of being a love interest in a romantic triangle with Peter and Mary Jane.


There were problems, however, when I began thinking of this movie as a stand-alone story. My biggest problem with it was a storyline involving Harry Osborn following in his dad's footsteps as The New Goblin. I'll try not to give away too much, but let me just say there's a short-lived change of heart that does nothing more than take up time in the story because by the time the climax to the movie happens, they had ended up at the same stage the began at.


The other problem that I had with this installment is the fact that there were 3 villains in this movie. I thought we'd learned years ago in Batman Returns that when you try to cram too many villains into a 2 hour movie, someone besides the hero gets the shaft—the audience. As a childhood fan of the Spider-man series, I was really excited to see the Venom villain realized on film and I felt a bit disappointed at how lightly that character was handled.

Will all of this being said, I don't want anyone to think that I didn't like this movie—there are many things to love about this film! It has a great message. In addition to the standard themes of "with great power comes great responsibility" and putting the needs and safety of others above your own personal satisfaction, there's an additional message to this movie that we all of the potential for good or evil in our lives, and it's up to us to choose.

All in all, I would recommend this movie. It might not be the best of the series, but it definitely fits in well will the overall story of the trilogy and I for one hope that this is a series that's nowhere near finished running its course.

Movie Review: Children of Men

The year is 2027, and the world has gone to dystopian heck.

Eastern Europe, North American and African societies have collapsed, with the refugees pouring into England. Humankind is on the brink of extinction, as no child has been born for the last 18 years.

This is the setting for Alfonso Cuarón's Children of Men. While it may not sound like a good time at the cinema, it is one of the most startling and interesting movies I've seen all year.

Like his previous films such as A Little Princess and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Cuarón is a director with a distinct and imaginative vision. He's certainly one of my favorite directors, and I'd encourage you to watch all of his films.

In Children, he throws aside his playful sense of fantasy and replaces it with grim, gritty reality. It's a bit like George Orwel's 1984 meets Blade Runner with a helping of Shindler's List. Humanity is (sadly) cheap in 2027.

Clive Owen stars as Theo Faron, an ex-political activist turned bureaucrat who seems to be swimming through the cluttered wasteland of London with little to live for. He joins up with his still activist ex-wife, played by Julienne Moore, in an attempt to help save the world's last hope: a baby.



Owen is an unlikely hero, more flawed and human than any big-name action star. Here Owen stumbles through rubble, swigs alcohol, ducks stray bullets, and eventually finds some hope in life from helping someone else. He's filthy, unshaven, and a bit worn out... and yet he's also noble.

What I liked most about the film is that though it is very dark, you find yourself rooting for Theo to not only survive the journey, but also find some reason to live. He's a realistic and believable protagonist, one whom you wish you could hand a cup of hot coffee or some dry shoes.


The story moves about deftly, with hand-held cameras and some very long, natural shots. Cuarón does an amazing job with making the film feel natural, as if you're truly there. I often found myself cringing, ducking bullets, and really worrying about the characters on screen. I was on the edge of my seat for the entire span of the dvd.


The troubling thing about Children of Men is that this bleak future seems all too possible. It was almost like watching a real-world documentary from 2027. The loss of some personal liberties and security we've seen recently in America is echoed in Children... and it makes one wonder how far they might go.

I'd recommend for people not afraid of a hopeful story set in a very believable dark future.

Rated R

Daniel m. Davis
www.steamcrow.com

Movie Review: Surf's Up

They do it for the joy and the rapture and the slow-motion instant replay...

I remember 12 years ago when I was sitting in the theater watching Disney/Pixar’s Toy Story for the first time. The big selling point of the film was that it was the first all-CGI animated feature. Fortunately it also ushered in the fantastic era of Pixar story telling that always exceeded their technological feats.

So now fast forward to 2007 where hand drawn animation has been relegated to daytime animated cartoons and direct to DVD releases and CGI animation has become so commonplace that the story has to be interesting or entertaining enough to draw in audiences, and not just the fact that the images we’re seeing were completely hatched in a computer.

With all of this in mind, it’s so nice to see that a movie like Surf’s Up can provide computer generated visuals that instill a sense of awe, while telling a story that’s unique, touching and entertaining.

Surf’s Up is about a penguin named Cody Maverick, voiced by Shia LaBeouf (Transformers, Disturbia) who doesn’t fit in with his family in Antarctica because of his love of surfing. He soon gets his big break as a sports recruiter comes and signs him up to compete in the Penguin World Surfing Championship.

Story-wise, this film has a lot in common with the beach movies of the 1960s. There’s the mysterious surf hero named Big Z, voiced by Jeff Bridges (Tron, Seabiscuit); the goofy side-kick dude, voiced by the stereotyped Jon Heder (Napoleon Dynamite, Just Like Heaven); and the beach girl love interest, voiced by Zooey Deschanel (Elf, Bridge to Terabithia)—all of which kept reminding me of the Gidget movies, where the wise and seasoned surfer had to straighten out the naive newcomer.

What makes Surf’s Up so unique is that it’s filmed in a documentary style that mimics many of the reality TV shows that are on the air right now.  This is quite a daring thing to do because of how popular reality TV is—it would be easy in an animated feature to make it look too planned out to work in that format. Fortunately, the animators do an excellent job and combined with the natural voice acting, make you feel like you’re watching something that was captured live on camera instead of being painstakingly posed frame-by-frame.

So, how did this movie affect me? Well, let's just say that when I watched Cars, it didn’t make me want to drive race cars; when I watched The Incredibles, I didn’t want to go out and become a superhero (well, at least no more than usual); but by the time Surf’s Up was over, I was actually getting excited about the prospect of going out and learning how to surf! The CGI animation was so expertly done that I was actually feeling like I was getting a taste of what the sport is actually like. Over the last few years I’ve been lamenting the fact that the movie industry has all but abandoned traditional, hand-drawn animation, but here is a movie that would definitely not have been as effective if it was done any other way.

I think that Surf’s Up was hurt by all of the recent penguin movies. I for one sighed a bit when I saw the first advertisement for it, but take my advice—forget all you know about March of the Penguins or Happy Feet, put on Surf’s Up and get ready for a fun ride!

Movie Review: Elizabeth: The Golden Age

I, too, can command the wind, sir! I have a hurricane in me that will strip Spain bare if you dare to try me!

I went into watching Elizabeth: The Golden Age without having seen the first Elizabeth movie from 1998, so I was a little concerned about how lost I could be if this movie was a strict continuation of the first. If anyone else shares my concern, let me reassure you that not only is this a chapter out of the life of Queen Elizabeth I that stands on it’s own very well, but it’s also very accessible to those who aren’t into Old English history.


This chapter out of the life of “The Virgin Queen” portrays Queen Elizabeth I, played once again by Cate Blanchett (The Lord of the Rings, The Good German), as she is in jeopardy of having her kingdom overthrown by a crazed king of Spain who believes that this Protestant Queen is corrupting her people by straying from the Catholic faith. He employs spies and traitors to put into place a plan aimed at dethroning Elizabeth and placing England under Spanish rule.

I have to admit that this movie started at a pace that made me feel like it was building to something big. Everything that was said and done came across with an air of importance. And while the actual battle for England didn’t occur until the very end, there was plenty of treachery, intrigue and genuine surprises to keep me interested.


Just a word to all of the “chick-flick” haters out there: Yes, this is a costume drama and yes people do speak with accents and different languages (with subtitles), and yes there is romance in this movie with a love triangle between Elizabeth, one of her ladies in waiting and Sir Walter Raleigh, played by Clive Owen (King Arthur, Children of Men), but these aspects never detract from the fact that the themes, mysteries and reversals portrayed here are just as interesting and poignant as when told in a modern setting.


Since I did notice as the movie was starting that there were about 20 women in the theater and only 3 men, including me, I feel that I need to emphasize a recommendation for this movie. Since I haven’t seen the first I can’t say whether or not it’s more or less of a “girly” film than the first, but it was definitely an entertaining film for me, a guy, that was well worth the price of admission.

Movie Review: Night at the Museum

Our Night at the Museum

I must admit that after seeing the previews for Night at the Museum, I was genuinely worried that this would be another one of those weak movies with a weak plot that ruins the movie by packing all of the funny parts into the preview. I am pleased to say that I was very pleasantly surprised.

This is one of those movies that takes into account that adults will be seeing the movie alongside their children. When I saw it in the theater, there were several places where you could hear adults laughing out loud. Ok, I admit it. I was one of them. But when I heard an 81-year-old Dick Van Dyke deliver the line, “No, Mr. Fredricks was my father,” I couldn’t help myself.

The premise behind the script is that because of an Egyptian curse, everything in the museum comes to life each night with the setting of the sun. When the rays of the sun once again peek over the horizon, all of the museum pieces return to their inanimate state. Now, this does present some inconsistencies at times. For example, at one point, the information desk is completely destroyed by a tyrannosaurus skeleton on a rampage, but then the desk is magically restored when the sun comes up. However, in another case, our hero Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) gets in trouble when the museum director spots fire extinguisher foam on a caveman display. However, the writing is so clever and entertaining, that you are willing to overlook these “reality” breaks.


Another thing that makes this movie work is the actors. Ben Stiller is able to keep the movie grounded while everything around him is in utter chaos. Stiller is always good at playing the straight man in the midst of ridiculous situations. If you liked him in Meet the Parents, you will like his performance in Museum. Another refreshing surprise was to see Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney, and Bill Cobbs as the retiring night watchmen. These gentlemen still have their comedic gifts even in their twilight years. Owen Wilson and Robin Williams also play their parts perfectly, and if you can believe it, Robin’s character is actually quite subdued, playing the part of the wise sage, Teddy Roosevelt. If there was one performance I did not enjoy, it was Ricky Gervais (The Office, UK version) as the museum director. His performance was just too overacted to be believable.


So overall, this movie does not have a life-altering message, except perhaps to never quit and always do your best, but I must say that we were definitely entertained. From the moment my 6-year-old daughter grabbed my arm when the T-Rex came after Ben Stiller, to the car ride home where all my kids kept repeating the lines delivered by a giant Easter Island head, (“Hey dumb-dumb, give me gum-gum.”) We had fun. Kids and adults alike will enjoy this movie. That is, unless you happen to spend your free time sitting on your porch in a creaky rocking chair yelling at kids to “Get off the lawn!” By the way, the scenes with the monkey were still funny even though I had seen them hundreds of times in the previews.

Movie Review: Flyboys

What is it, exactly, that makes a movie into a blockbuster? Is it the name-brand actors that populate the cast, Like Oceans 11 and 12? Is it an engaging story that captivates the audience long before the movie is made, like Titanic? Is it the millions of dollars the studio pours into pre-release marketing in hopes of a record-breaking opening, like Happy Feet? Well, it’s a shame, but for some reason Flyboys seems to have missed most, if not all of these opportunities.

Flyboys is a World War I era film centered around Blaine Rawlings, played by James Franco (Spider-Man, Tristan and Isolde), who looses his ranch in Texas to creditors and is left with nobody and nowhere to go, so he decides to go to France to become a biplane pilot before the United States had officially entered the war.

When Blaine arrives, he quickly bonds with fellow Americans who have joined up with France’s Air Force for various reasons but who all must quickly learn how to trust each other as they learn how to use the new invention called an “airplane” in a wartime setting.

Quite a few things impressed me about this movie, primarily how well it was served by the modern special effects technology of our time. The portrayal of the dogfights conveyed well how naked these pilots were up in the sky with no canopy over their head, nothing much thicker than paper around them, and no parachutes to escape with if they should go down. All of this reinforced to me how dangerous these aerial dogfights actually were.


Another great thing about this movie was how true to the period the relationships seemed. In the last few years, Hollywood has seen fit to take historical events and put fictional characters in them to tell the story, such as Titanic, U-571, and Pearl Harbor. The problem with this is that in the process they usually introduce modern sensibilities into these storylines that don’t always mesh with the historical setting. I was refreshed that the romantic plot in Flyboys was every bit as innocent and noble as I would have expected people to act in 1910.


What made this movie even more meaningful to me was that, at the end, they updated us on what happened to the characters after the story portrayed in the movie was over—even showing a picture of the actual people portrayed! I had no idea that this movie was based on a true story and people and was left scratching my head as to why a bigger deal of that wasn’t made when the movie was promoted.

Ultimately, I’m sorry that Flyboys didn’t do better at the box office, because I think everyone really missed out on, not only a great ride, but a great story about a world that was waking up to a new century with new technologies and ideas. I would definitely recommend this film.

The Prestige and The Illusionist

Why can’t Hollywood studios hide the fact that they copy each other a little better? Quite often, it seems that an executive from studio Y gets wind of what studio X is doing and demands that his studio come up with something bigger and better.

There are many examples of movie studios copying each other over the last decade: Armageddon and Deep Impact, Madagascar and The Wild, Mission to Mars and Red Planet, A Bug's Life and Antz. The list could go on and on. Usually these movies are released within a month or two of each other, making it even harder not to suspect copying, which usually leaves me to try to figure out which of the two concepts came first.

So, what’s bringing on this particular rant? The Prestige and The Illusionist. Both are period movies about magicians, both came out within 2 months of each other, and both have twisting plots told in the forms of flashbacks. I can’t help but compare them.

I saw The Illusionist when it was released in the theater. When the titles first appeared on the screen, I noticed how they looked a little shaky and thought it seemed strange. I quickly realized that it was all part of the overall style of the movie that I soon grew to love. The movie was made to appear like a silent movie, with washed-out, almost sepia toned color and subtle shutter flickers and iris wipes that hearken back to the primitive technology of movie making in the early 20th century silent movie era.

This old-fashioned style was also reflected in the designs of the costumes, sets, hair and make-up. Even the dialogue seemed to be stylized to fit more into the time, but never in an over-the-top, melodramatic way.


The story is essentially a love triangle between Eisenheim the Illusionist, played by Edward Norton (Fight Club), Sophie, Played by Jessica Biel (Stealth), and Crown Prince Leopold, Played by Rufus Sewel (Tristan and Isolde). The flashbacks are framed by the recollection of Inspector Uhl, played by Paul Giamatti (Sideways), who is enlisted to investigate Eisenheim once the Crown Prince develops suspicions of him at a performance.

There are plot twists in this movie that center around one question: does Eisenheim have supernatural powers or not? Once we learn the truth of this, all of the film’s other questions are also answered. So while there are no earth-shattering surprises, it’s still an intriguing mystery that you don’t truly know the answer of until the very end.

I saw the next film, The Prestige, on DVD recently. Written and directed by Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins), this movie appears to take place in the same period of time, but unlike The Illusionist, the filmmaking is rather straightforward. It is about two magicians played by Christian Bale (Batman Begins) and Hugh Jackman (X-Men) who at one time were friends, but through an accident have become bitter rivals, each trying to outdo the other.

The Prestige also stars the ubiquitous Scarlet Johansson (The Island, In Good Company, Match Point, The Black Dahlia, Lost in Translation, etc, etc, etc…) in a role that introduces a possible love triangle that turns out to be nothing more than a mildly effective plot device.


While The Prestige was an entertaining movie, I was disappointed that I was able to guess the two big secrets long before they were officially revealed in the movie. In fact, the very last shot of the film was undoubtedly supposed to be a shocking surprise, but it was exactly what I was expecting to see.

Between these two movies, I’d have to say that the best one was The Illusionist. The Prestige really let me down by destroying the illusion of the final trick by introducing technology more akin to Star Trek than performance magic. In watching a movie about magicians, or in watching a real magician like David Copperfield, part of the thrill is seeing something that seems impossible, but knowing it’s ultimately an illusion that leaves you wondering how in the world it was done—which is ultimately what we go see movies for, isn’t it?

Now if the movie studios could only do a better job at creating an illusion that they’re not copying each other, then we might be getting somewhere.

Movie Review: Casino Royale

Vesper Lynd: It doesn't bother you; killing all those people?

James Bond: Well I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did.

When a friend suggested going to see the new James Bond film, Casino Royale, I was more interested in a night at the movies than the movie itself. Not being much of a James Bond fan, if I was ever inclined to watch one of the previous movies, I was content to do it on the small screen in the comfort of my living room.

I’m sure that most of my reasons for not being crazy about previous Bond movies are the same things that would make people love them—the miraculous coincidences of his gadgets, the sexual puns and innuendo, his almost super-human ability to remain cool-headed amidst impending doom—instead, these gave me the attitude that if I’d seen one, I’ve seen them all.

But much to my surprise, once the opening credits began I knew that there was something different about Casino Royale. Instead of the artful silhouettes of nudes jumping around the screen, it was a brilliantly animated sequence that set me up for the action and themes of the movie. Plus, being a graphic designer myself, the artistry behind the credits was well worth the price of admission.


Daniel Craig (Munich, The Road To Perdition) was a brilliant choice as the new Bond. Though he’s handsome, he’s not the smooth, suave and debonair Bond that Pierce Brosnan was. Instead he’s rugged and visceral, like a cross between Steve McQueen and Mel Gibson.

Casino Royale is based on the first book in Ian Fleming’s James Bond series and shows us how he became a “Double-O” agent and how he handles his first “mission.” It’s great to see the studio restart the James Bond franchise like this. The changes aren’t as drastic as the way the Batman franchise was restarted with the movie Batman Begins, but I really liked how much more realistic everything seemed to me. Bond makes mistakes. He trusts too much. He’s reckless. He also gets hurt and has to convalesce for a while. It’s also nice to be shown by the events in this movie why he is emotionally detached and distrustful in future stories.

The action in Casino Royale was top notch. There wasn’t any fancy camera work to disguise poor stunt work or fight choreography but just straight-forward shots to let us be amazed by what they were doing and to enjoy the ride.


The filmmakers also do a great job at making a movie that’s essentially about a high-stakes card game, exciting. For a poker-ignoramus like myself, they're also able to explain the game enough for me to be interested in what happens next. I suppose that you could say that this movie was made to capitalize on all of the popularity poker is having right now, and I’m sure that’s true, but the card games were intermingled with enough intrigue and action that it never became dull or boring.

If you are concerned about the effects of gambling on teenagers, you might want to have them avoid this movie, otherwise I’d recommend it for anyone teen to adult who’s up for a good ride and a refreshing start to what was becoming a tired franchise.

NEWS: Spider-man 3 Final Trailer Now Online!

Comcast now has an exclusive site featuring the final Spider-man 3 trailer. In this trailer we see a quick glimpse of super-villain, Venom, who sprange from the comic book series about the time when I was in high school and still buying the series regularly.

I have to say, that of all the super-hero movies that have been made lately, the Spider-man series has been the most satisfying. Maybe it’s because they could stay very faithful to the look and feel of the series without having it become too campy. Maybe it’s because Peter Parker, played by Tobey Maquire (Seabiscuit, Pleasantville), is such an “everyman” that there’s a little bit of something that everyone can relate to. In either case, I’m really looking forward to seeing it and excited for the great start to the summer blockbusters.

Movie Review: Lady in the Water

When I saw the early trailer for M. Night Shyamalan’s movie, Lady in the Water, it appeared to be about a lonely superintendent who finds a mysterious woman-like creature in the pool, like a mermaid or something. As the release of the movie approached, it turned out that she was from a strange place far away and was being chased by these wolf-like creatures and for some reason, she needed the superintendent’s help. It turns out, the actual movie is much less interesting than either of these ideas.

Lady in the Water is about an apartment’s superintendent named Cleveland Heep, played by Paul Giamatti (Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes, Sideways), who discovers a lady in the swimming pool named Story, played by Bryce Dallas Howard (How the Grinch Stole Christmas, The Village, Ron Howard’s daughter). She turns out to be a creature from the ocean that has come to find her human connection and then to return home. It becomes Cleveland’s task to figure out whom she needs to connect with and how to help her return home.

M. Night Shyamalan has built himself a name as a storyteller who weaves an intricate web of story elements that ultimately come together to provide his audience with a surprising and satisfying conclusion. Unfortunately, he apparently knows this, and is inclined to not only repeat the pattern in this movie, but also to talk to the audience about it as events unfold. In fact there’s so much talking in this movie that it totally saps away any mystery or suspense.

Usually I go to a movie hoping to be immersed in the imaginary world being portrayed on the big screen. I’ve never seen a movie that removed me from that experience more than this one did. From the opening prologue which totally took away any mystery about who she was, and on throughout the rest of the film, words like “contrived” and “convoluted” kept coming to my mind. The story seemed to meander along hoping to be linked together by the reciting of a bedtime story that was, coincidentally, exactly what was occurring. Instead of finding an interesting way of showing us what was going on, M. Night resorted to telling us. That might have worked in a book, but not in a movie.

Another thing that brought me out of this movie-watching experience was the fact that M. Night himself, who has usually played very small cameos in his movies, took on the role of a character who is a writer. This was such a significant part that I couldn’t help but be reminded that he is a writer also, and so he must be making statements about his own importance to the world through this part he was playing in his movie. This wouldn’t have bothered me nearly as much were another actor playing the part, but for some reason he felt he needed to do it and I couldn’t help questioning his motives.

I’m afraid I can’t recommend this movie. I was hoping for something that might be a departure from his usual formula, not a dissertation on what makes his movies what they are. Instead I would recommend watching 1948’s Mr Peabody and the Mermaid, a comedy about a man who actually finds a mermaid in his swimming pool; or 1994’s The Secret of Roan Inish, a drama about a young girl who discovers an ancestor of hers married a selkie—a seal who can turn into a human. I think a cross between these two films is what I was hoping for, anyway.

Movie Review: Cars

Knowing that I’m a big Pixar fan, I decided that I would try to be as impartial as possible in watching the new movie, Cars. I did a good job too—I thought. At first I was jaded as I heard Randy Newman’s Disney/Pixar logo fanfare at the beginning and I thought, “Oh yes, this is a John Lasseter film and he ALWAYS uses Randy Newman.” Then I was cynical as the movie started and I thought, “Is this going to be an hour and a half long Chevron talking car commercial?” And then the race began… I was hooked.

The story is about Lightning McQueen, voiced by Owen Wilson (Wedding Crashers, Shanghai Noon), a rookie on the racing circuit with a huge fan base and even larger ego. When his arrogance leads to botching his easy victory which ends up being a three-way tie, a showdown race is scheduled between the three winners in California for the following week.


On the way to California, his impatience causes him to be stranded in Radiator Springs, an old forgotten Route 66 desert town with an unusual automobile population. It’s here that he learns that his one-man-team/win-at-all-costs mentality is not the way to find true happiness and make real friends.


Pixar definitely is the top CGI animation studio for technological innovation and it showed in the smoke left by the squealing tires and the visual depth of the crowds in the opening racing scenes. The reflections on the cars actually made me think that they must have used real cars in places. The realism was amazing!


As with all Pixar films, their technological prowess never upstages the depth and charm of their characters. Owen Wilson is perfectly cast as the self absorbed speedster, and the Radiator Springs gallery of misfits all have their special charm and appeal. Tony Shalhoub (Monk, Galaxy Quest) does a perfectly unrecognizable accent as the obsessive Luigi, the European auto mechanic; Paul Newman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting) has a powerful presence as the road weary Doc Hudson; but perhaps the most memorable of the bunch will be Larry the Cable Guy (Larry the Cable Guy), who voices the innocent and brash Mater, the tow truck.

I have to say that Pixar has done it right again. While I wouldn’t classify this as my most favorite of their movies, it in no way tarnishes their reputation for putting out the finest in CGI Animation, if not the finest in family entertainment.

I dare you not to enjoy this movie.

Movie Review: Firewall

The kinds of things I look for in a suspense thriller are a dangerous adversary, a likable protagonist, an overwhelming crisis, and a sense of real danger. Firewall has all of these qualities and more as it ups the ante by having the crisis set around the main character’s family who are taken hostage. The interesting twist is that his family is being held as hostages in his home with him. This creates the ever-present danger that if he fails to comply with the kidnapper's demands, he runs the risk of having his family killed right in front of him.

In the movie, Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark—do you really need me to tell you who he is?) plays Jack Stanfield, the director of network security at a bank in Seattle, Washington. The crisis begins as Bill Cox, played by Paul Bettany (A Beautiful Mind, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World), uses his thugs to take Jack’s family hostage.


The ultimate goal of the hostage takers is to rob the bank. They place such complete surveillance on Jack that it seems virtually impossible for him not to comply with their demands in order to save his family. This is exactly what I liked about it. There were times when I thought there was no way he’d get out of it, and sometimes when it appears that he is going to get them out, it backfires and makes the situation worse.

To avoid spoiling any of it, I won’t say anything more about the plot. I will just say, that Harrison Ford is getting old. That’s not such a bad thing, though, but it was strange for me to watch this movie after finding out that he’s about 2 years older than my parents, who are now 62. The filmmakers actually used this to their advantage a few moments when he actually gets hurt! At one point, he had to climb around the side of a building and I started to think that they were stretching the believability a bit, but then he drops down on the ground and hurts himself and struggles to get up again. He’s also almost 20 years older than Virginia Madsen (Electric Dreams, Sideways), who plays his wife, but she did a very good job playing the mother of 2 children and I didn’t think about the age difference after a while.


My only complaint about this and other movies in this genre is that, while there were no questions left unanswered, the end of the movie came too soon after the climax. I like to have a little time to see that the characters are all really OK and that they are getting their lives back. At the beginning of this movie, his daughter calls him “Jack”, instead of “Dad” indicating that there must be some kind of rift between the two of them. I would have liked to see more of an emotional connection between them by the end.

Another thing that stuck out to me, though it didn’t bother me as much as other movies have, is that there was no foreshadowing left unexplored. Comments like, “Hey, his Radio Controlled car is messing up the TV!” or “Don’t forget the dog’s new special collar” or “Don’t feed him peanuts because they’ll kill him” all come back to pay off eventually, though not always as effectively as you might expect. Just once I’d like to see someone look longingly at a tube of toothpaste, or something, and never see it again—just to play with our heads.

Overall, Firewall effectively lives up to the suspense thriller genre. Although it didn’t get my adrenaline pumping as much as some other movies I’ve seen, it’s still a fun ride with strong actors and an engaging plot.

Movie Review: Mission Impossible 3

Mission: Impossible 3
Rated: PG-13
Starring: Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ving Rhames, Billy Crudup, Michelle Monaghan, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Keri Russell, Maggie Q, Laurence Fishburne.


Tom is back here as Ethan Hunt. This time he has left the field and is training agents. He's also engaged to be married (Monaghan), but of course he hasn't told his bride-to-be what he really does. His cover is that he works for the Department of Transportation and studies traffic patterns. Exciting stuff. Well guess what - he accepts a new assignment to rescue an agent he trained named Lindsey (Russell) who has been captured by the evil, sadistsic, and elusive black marketeer named Owen Davian (Hoffman). The rescue doesn't quite go as planned as Davian remotely kills Lindsey with a remotely detonated charge implanted in her head. Hunt and his IMF team go to Rome to capture Davian and figure out what he's really up to. They do capture him and find that he's after something called the Rabbit's foot (a McGuffin) although Davian is rescued in a bold and audacious rescue attempt. Next Hunt's new bride is captured, and it's a trade for him to get the Rabbits foot for her life - oh and he has 48 hours, oh and he's been declared a rogue agent and is on the run from his own department. Oh what will happen.

So first let's stop and ask, what do you really expect going into a Mission Impossible movie? Great stunts, non-stop action, great villain, solid ensemble acting, and a story that holds together. Well 4 out of 5 isn't too bad for this. The stunts and action are generally very well done, although there were definitely a few places that really exceeded the bounds of plausibility, and I mean really stretched the bounds of plausbility. I thought the Owen Davian character was good and Hoffman executed it well. The ensemble acting was solid although the IMF team mainly consists of Cruise with a bit of Rhames and Meyers and Maggie Q are needed to get the number of team members up to 4. They didn't have much to do, but did their bits very well. The story actually worked for me at the beginning until a scene near that end where a number of twists are revealed and things aren't what they appeared. The explanation didn't make much sense to me and the way they were revealed was too hurried and clearly suggests that the details of any story here are just an inconvenient obligation to fulfill along the way to creating adrenaline filled action sequences. Leaving the theater one is left with more memories and thoughts of specific moments or scenes rather than a sense that you've been told some kind of story. With all the out of work writers in Hollywood you'd think you could find someone who could tell a plausible and interesting story spanning an entire 2 hours. Tom, I'm pretty sure I can come up with something a lot better than this for MI-4, so call me and let's talk. That said I enjoyed the movie. The action scenes were intense, well executed and generally pretty original and the movie moved along well.

If they choose to do an MI4 I would welcome that, although I think a bit more work on the storyline would pay huge dividends. I can definitely recommend the movie as a good fun action movie and not much else. I didn't expect much else and thus was not disappointed.


Before I wrap up here, let's speculate about what could be done for MI-4. What if they put together an IMF (Impossible Movie Force) team to direct it. I'd like to see a Dream Team of directors/writers put together. My list would be David Mamet, Robert Altman, John Woo, and Steven Soderbergh. Would they accept this mission? Can they save this movie franchise before it self-destructs? Wouldn't you pay $8.50 just to see what that movie would look like?

Recommended for Adults: Yes. A fun action movie.
Recommended for Kids: I think the PG-13 rating is appropriate and would caution parents with children under 13 to use careful judgement as there is some sadistic violence and a (mild) sex scene.
Overall: Well done action movie with solid action and acting, but a weak ending.

Movie Review: Tristan and Isolde

In the first few minutes of Tristan and Isolde, I thought that it was going to be a poorly-done knock-off of Mel Gibson’s Braveheart. The movie unfolds as a medieval period film about warring kingdoms with a big battle at the beginning. I soon realized, that this wasn't intended to be a battle movie like Braveheart; rather, it was a tragic love story which takes place in an adeptly portrayed pre-Christian England.

This movie is a retelling of an ancient legend that has many variations and has inspired other well-known stories such as Romeo and Juliet or the love triangle of King Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot.

At the time the movie takes place, England and Ireland are enemies. Only Ireland is united under one king whereas England is broken up into tribes. If those tribes were to unite, then they will be much too strong for Ireland to dominate, so Ireland’s king does his best to sabotage England’s unification efforts. Lord Marke, played by Rufus Sewell (A Knight’s Tale, Arabian Nights), is the tribe leader most likely to unite England as king. He brings the orphaned boy Tristan, played by James Franco (Spider-man 1, 2 & 3) into his household where he raises him as a son.

The adult Tristan goes to battle and is believed to be dead after he is cut by a poisoned blade. He is sent away in a funeral boat but his boat ends up beached on the coast of Ireland, where he’s found by the King’s daughter, Isolde, played by Sophia Miles (Thunderbirds, Underworld). Isolde nurses him back to health in secret, and they inevitably fall in love.

Eventually, Tristan returns to England and is sent to a tournament to win the prize in the name of Lord Marke. Little does he know that the prize is the hand of Isolde in marriage.

One of the things this movie did very well was the getting-to-know-you sequences between Tristan and Isolde. There was a natural relationship that formed as she nursed him back to health. When the time came for Isolde to marry the king that Tristan was loyal to, the angst that the two of them feel, pitted against their need to be separated because of duty was very powerful. This movie effectively shows us these struggles instead of just telling us that they exist. It’s funny, but during this portion of the movie, I kept thinking about how good Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones could have been, if the Anakin and Padme sequences had been structured the same way that Tristan and Isolde’s sequences were.

One of the things that I really liked about this story is that Lord Marke is really a good guy! Isolde even begins to appreciate him after a short time. This makes what Tristan does even more despicable. It was nice to see the main characters actually struggling with the decisions as they attempted to balance duty and honor against their love for each other.

In the end, I was sad about the the fates that Tristan and Isolde were consigned to and for the mistakes that they made. I would classify this as a great morality tale. Often we believe that our feelings should rule over us always, and that if something “feels right” it must be good. But we need to always remember, that honor and duty aren’t just social conventions— they’re reminders that our choices and actions actually impact the lives of others, and ultimately, we're responsible for much more than just our own peace and safety.

Movie Review: Over the Hedge

Over the Hedge
Rated: PG
Voices by: Bruce Willis, Garry Shandling, Steve Carell, Wanda Sykes, William Shatner, Nick Nolte, Thomas Haden Church, Allison Janney, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Avril Lavigne.
Directed by: Tim Johnson and Karey Kirkpatrick

This movie begins with RJ (Willis) sneaking into the cave of a hibernating bear named Vincent (Nolte) and attempting to steal his enormous stash of food. Caught in the act and accidentally destroying the pile as he tries to get away he is given a week to restore the trash or Vincent will kill him. RJ next runs into a little "family" of assorted animals led by Verne (Shandling). While the family has been hibernating for the winter their forest has been surrounding by a huge sprawling suburban development and a large hedge. RJ recruits them all to forage for food over the hedge. What they don't know is that RJ plans to take the fruits of their labor and turn it over to Vincent. What RJ doesn't expect is to find the real meaning of family.

This is a very well done movie. The writing and acting is very good. The story is well conceived and is perfect for children (I saw it with my 5 year-old), but has enough substance and genuine funny moments to capture adults. It's nothing deep to be sure, but it's certainly a fun way to spend an evening. All of the characters are fun and I think almost everyone will enjoy the character Hammy (Carrell).

My recent review of The Wild complained about the animation of the animals. The animation here looks much better and the scenes are well constructed and interesting. There is nothing particularly remarkable to say about the movie other than that it really holds together, entertains its audience and delivers on what you'd expect.

Recommended for Adults: Definitely fun entertainment.
Recommended for Kids: Definitely.
Overall: Very well done movie.

Movie Commentary: Superman Returns

New Superman Returns trailer (View Here)

The new Superman Returns trailer was recently released and it has risen my anticipation for the film 10-fold. Yes I know there has been some guff about this film for some time, but I have a hard time not looking forward to it. Are the lead actors too young? Perhaps. Is Kevin Spacey merely “channeling” Gene Hackman? Possibly. Do I really care? Not at all. You see people, this is a re-imagining of the Superman films which intends to pay homage to and respect the first 2 Superman films but also restart the franchise. Or, you could just consider it a film being made by someone who loves the material and felt it was a movie he had to make. I’m speaking of course about Bryan Singer, a talented and capable director who has proven his ability to craft a great story (The Usual Suspects) and handle a sci-fi / comic book film (X-Men 1 & 2). When given the opportunity to direct the new Superman movie, Bryan walked away from the X-Men film franchise that he helped to establish and took on the story of The Last Son Of Krypton. This was a project very close to him and one that he could not turn down. Some people are not fans of Bryan’s work, especially the X films, and that’s to be expected. There’s nothing wrong with people not liking an artist's work, that’s why there are many different artists.

I have a lot of faith in this film being what it has to be. The original Superman film, and it’s less than perfect sequel, will always be favorites of mine. The first film took a very dramatic look at a story filled with fantasy and superpowers. But Superman has stood for very human things for as long as he’s been around. While his abilities are the things that set him apart from the rest of humanity, it’s his human qualities, and his conviction to adhere to the homespun qualities instilled in him by his adoptive parents, that make him special. But we can aspire to those same qualities as well. We cannot fly, but we can be truthful. We are not bulletproof, yet we can stand for the things we believe in. We do not have x-ray vision, yet we can see the injustices in the world and have compassion and understanding for those having awful things done to them. Our love and caring for our fellow man can be as powerful as Superman. Of course we all know this is a fictitious tale, yet the lessons we can glean from it are all too real. This is a film, and a story, that is filled with truth and justice, “The American Way”, and for a few hours this summer, that’s a story that’s worth hearing, and one that can’t be told enough. I look forward to having fun at this film, and feeling good about what it says to me. I hope you all find the same message in this film. Have fun!

Movie Review: Red Eye

I’m really not a big horror movie buff. Actually I think the last time I watched one was back in my high school days, but I have seen A Nightmare on Elm Street and I do know that Wes Craven has become as synonymous with horror films as Alfred Hitchcock was with mysteries and thrillers. So when I saw that Wes Craven had directed Red Eye, an airplane thriller that seemed like a departure from his regular style of slasher films, I was intrigued.

Red Eye is about a young woman named Lisa Reisert, played by Rachel McAdams (The Notebook, Wedding Crashers), who is a hotel manager flying home to attend her grandmother’s funeral. In the airport she meets the charming Jackson Rippner, played by Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins, Cold Mountain), who we quickly learn has orchestrated their meeting in order to leverage some assistance from her in carrying forward his dastardly plot by threatening to have someone kill her father, played by Brian Cox (X-Men 2, The Bourne Identity) if she doesn’t comply.


What I really liked about this movie was how well it portrayed the main character, Lisa, getting wrapped up in a terrible, at times heart-wrenching situation and we the viewers get to ride along to witness how or if she’ll get out of it unscathed. I really enjoyed how the bulk of the movie took place in their seating compartment on the plane. At times it was very claustrophobic which added to the trapped feeling that Lisa must have been experiencing, and I thought it amplified the tension.

I did have one problem with the movie, though, and this might be a result of Wes Craven’s movie making style, but at times it seemed that Rachel McAdams, Cilian Murphy, and Brian Cox were the only actors who took the movie seriously. Everyone else seemed to know they were in a Wes Craven movie and were giving the typical B horror movie campy performances that at times I thought were a little distracting. Sometimes the feel of the movie changed so drastically, that it seemed like I was watching two different movies at the same time. The performances of the three main actors were so strong that I wouldn't say the movie was ruined by the random campiness, I just thought that it could have been so much stronger if everyone was as strong.


Overall I'd say this is a good movie for adults. it has brief strong language and a little violence, but mostly it’s a tense thriller that kept me on the edge of my seat until the very end. If you’re up for a fun ride, this just might be the ticket for you… just make sure that you’re not on a plane when you decide to give this movie a shot.

Movie Review: Aeon Flux

Expect nothing, and you'll never be dissapointed?

So, what happens when you hear overwhelmingly bad reviews about a movie, but you decide to watch it anyway? Can you really objectively watch a movie and decide for yourself if it was good or bad? Are your expectations so low that no matter how bad it actually is, anything good in it will be a treat?

That was the situation that I found myself in when sitting down to watch Aeon Flux, starring Charlize Theron (North Country, The Italian Job) as the title character. This movie had received such bad reviews from so many of the movie critics that I listen to, that I was expecting it to be a disjointed and laughable movie that was big on effects and action, but shallow on plot. But what I found was a movie with an intriguing premise and a storyline that occasionally had me guessing and always held my interest.

Aeon Flux is set in a future time when the last city on Earth is ruled by the family of the person who developed the cure for the plague that wiped out the rest of the world’s population. Aeon is a member of a group of rebels called the Monicans who are trying to overthrow the government. Aeon is sent on a mission to assassinate the “chairman” of their ruling council, Trevor Goodchild, played by Martin Csokas (Kingdom of Heaven, The Bourne Supremacy), when she experiences some things that cause her to abandon her mission and seek out answers to the bigger mysteries of their community.


From what I’ve heard, this movie is based on an MTV animated series that I had never heard of before this came out. But while watching it, I could tell that it was following a very defined method of visual story telling, with many of the camera angles and scene compositions being very artistic and interesting to look at. I also noticed many instances of limited dialogue in this movie, which added to the visual artistry.

It seems to me that Director Karyn Kusama (Girlfight) really seemed to understand what this story was about, and seemed to be able to give it a cohesive feel to it throughout. I would imagine though, that this type of movie isn’t for everyone. As I said, it’s very stylized and could be seen as “artsy” or “weird” by many.

If I may digress, this is why movie reviewers sometimes frustrate me; to think that one person can give opinions on every movie out there and dictate which ones are good and which ones are bad. Really, movies are subjective. I’ve grown up watching movies like Logan’s Run, Planet of the Apes, Star Wars, Star Trek, and so on. A movie like Aeon Flux easily fit into those genres and I really enjoyed it. But I know many people who don’t like those movies that I just listed. And so I can tell you now that if you are one of them, you won’t like it.

All in all, I enjoyed this movie. Sure it had its flaws, but what movie doesn’t? I certainly don’t think that it deserved all of the negative press that it got and I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys futuristic movies about dystopian societies.

Movie Review: Corpse Bride

Corpse Bride
Rated: PG
Voices by: Johnny Depp (Victor), Helena Bonham Carter (Corpse Bride), Emily Watson (Victoria), Tracey Ullman, Paul Whitehouse, Joanna Lumley, Albert Finney, Richard E. Grant, Danny Elfman
Directed by: Tim Burton and Mike Johnson

I remember seeing the preview for the Corpse Bride in the theater and finding myself surprised at wanting to see it, not being a big Tim Burton fan (sorry my favorite colors aren't black and gray). I then completely forgot about it, and it came and went while pulling in a decent $50M+ at the box office. I chipped in my own $3.99 for pay-per-view this weekend and was very pleased.

The story is taken from a 16th century Jewish fairy tale where a young groom enroute to his wedding sees a stick coming out of the ground that looks like fingers and jokingly puts the ring on the finger and says his wedding vows only to find himself...


In this version Victor (Johnny Depp) is the shy son of a nouveau riche fish merchant who has been promised to Victoria (Emily Watson), the beautiful daughter of an aristocratic, but dead broke, family. Neither have met, until the day before the wedding at the rehearsal. They fall in love, but Victor just can't get his part of the ceremony right in the rehearsal and the priest threatens to call it off. Victor walks out of town into the woods to practice, and like the fairy tale, finds himself married to a corpse. Emily (Helena Bonham Carter) is a very lovely looking corpse with a maggot living behind her right eye. She is thrilled to be married after all this time (after being killed by her own fiancé just before marriage) and they find themselves in the land of the dead. The Land of the Dead is colorful, bright, and vibrant compared to the dark and cold world above. It's one happy place with musical numbers and a big wedding party. Naturally Victor tries to call this off and escape back to the land of the living. No one down below sees any reason why he can't be married to a corpse even if he is still a bit squ